[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Trump officials to announce closure of Palestinian Liberation Organization office in DC: report
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://thehill.com/policy/internati ... sure-of-palestinian-liberation
Published: Sep 10, 2018
Author: BRETT SAMUELS
Post Date: 2018-09-10 10:48:56 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 1165
Comments: 32

National security adviser John Bolton is expected to announced Monday that the U.S. will shutter the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) office in Washington, D.C., The Wall Street Journal reported.

“The Trump administration will not keep the office open when the Palestinians refuse to start direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel,” Bolton is expected to say, according to a draft of his speech reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Bolton will reportedly threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if it carries out investigations into the U.S. and Israel.

The action against the PLO, which serves as the main entity representing the Palestinian people, comes as the Trump administration takes a harsher stance toward Palestinians amid ongoing Middle East peace negotiations.

The State Department announced late last month that the U.S. will cut more than $200 million in economic aid for Palestinians and direct the money toward other projects. A State Department official said the decision was made "at the direction of President Trump" to ensure the money is spent "in accordance with U.S. national interests and [will] provide value to the U.S. taxpayer."

The decision could heighten tensions between the U.S. and Palestinian leaders, who already cut off communications in peace negotiations after Trump announced the U.S. Embassy in Israel would be relocated to Jerusalem.

The White House, led by senior adviser Jared Kushner, has yet to release its long-awaited Middle East peace plan involving Israel and the Palestinians.


Poster Comment:

Good riddance. Send them back to Egypt or somewhere besides Israel.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Good riddance. Send them back to Egypt or somewhere besides Israel.

Put 'em in boxcars, right?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-09-11   17:12:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#4)

Put 'em in boxcars, right?

That is 100% BS hyperbole that one expects from Leftist propagandists.

How long have you supported Jihad and pushing Israel into the sea?

Liberator  posted on  2018-09-17   13:10:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Liberator (#12)

How long have you supported Jihad and pushing Israel into the sea?

I'm simply trying to push Israel back on to their own land and allow the Palestinian Arabs to have their own country as outlined in UN 181.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-09-17   13:36:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#15) (Edited)

I'm simply trying to push Israel back on to their own land and allow the Palestinian Arabs to have their own country as outlined in UN 181.

Your position seems to be more in line with hijacking Israel and handing it to a "nation" ("Palestine") for which a culture and government have NEVER officially existed to begin with. (Why not also petition the UN to allocate US provincial land to all the Indian tribes?)

YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO FURTHER IGNORE: The Palestinians have rejected and VETOED having and embracing offers to have their own nation (they/Arafat even rejected a couple other subsequent/recent deals for your "Palestinian Nation. What's the excuse in these instances?)

Israel's actual originally proposed UN outlined land was reduced by, oh...90%. And you want to reduce that sliver further?

The UN has always been a bribed, corrupt mouthpiece for:

1) Arab-Muzzies
2) New World Order/One World Gimmint elites
3) Excusing Arab-Muzzie aggression (did NOTHING to stop them invading Israel in '48, '56, '67, and '73. EXCEPT when Israel began kickin' azz in all instances.)

You appear enamored with the UN as a Final Authoritah over men and our sovereignty. That's based on exactly WHAT historical or present principle and ethic they imbue?

Liberator  posted on  2018-09-17   14:01:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Liberator (#16)

Your position seems to be more in line with hijacking Israel and handing it to a "nation" ("Palestine") for which a culture and government have NEVER officially existed to begin with.

Not I. UN 181 called for dividing the British Mandate of Palestine into two sections -- one for the Palestinian Arabs and one for the Palestinian Jews.

"YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO FURTHER IGNORE: The Palestinians have rejected and VETOED having and embracing offers to have their own nation"

The Palestinians accepted, in writing and posted in Israeli newspapers, the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan which was endorsed by the Arab League in 2002 at the Beirut Summit and re-endorsed at the 2007 Arab League summit and re-endorsed at the 2017 Arab League summit.

Why did Israel reject it?

"Israel's actual originally proposed UN outlined land was reduced by, oh...90%."

I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you.

"You appear enamored with the UN as a Final Authoritah over men and our sovereignty. That's based on exactly WHAT historical or present principle and ethic they imbue?"

Well, Israel accepted the UN as "a Final Authoritah over men and sovereignty" when they agreed with UN 181 as it applied to giving land to them. No complaints about that.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-09-17   14:53:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#19) (Edited)

The Palestinians accepted, in writing and posted in Israeli newspapers, the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan which was endorsed by the Arab League in 2002 at the Beirut Summit and re-endorsed at the 2007 Arab League summit and re-endorsed at the 2017 Arab League summit.

Your Arab brethren rejected UN 181 terms. Perhaps this summary and overview of events help YOU understand the situation.


Institute for Contemporary Affairs

Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Vol. 17, No. 33

  • Seventy years ago, on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 calling for the partition of Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Jews accepted the plan with a mixture of joy and hesitation, while the Arabs rejected it and launched a war to forcibly prevent its implementation.
  • The Arabs denied the Jews any right whatsoever in their ancestral homeland, and a large majority still maintains this view to this day.
  • Since the Arab states rejected the resolution upon its adoption and prevented its implementation, the Palestinian leadership can neither logically nor legally claim today that Resolution 181 can serve as a basis for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
  • Moreover, the partition plan refers to the creation of an Arab state, not a Palestinian state. Indeed, nowhere does it indicate the creation of a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people. There was never any such designation as “Palestinian” for the Arab population residing in the area.
  • Finally, according to the UN Charter, General Assembly resolutions are simply recommendations and are not legally binding. Only resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the Charter may be obligatory. Thus, Resolution 181 cannot in any manner be considered to be a basis for a Palestinian claim to statehood. id="attachment_61612" st*l*="width: 510px" class="wp-caption aligncenter">United Nations
General Assembly partition vote, November 29, 1947

    United Nations General Assembly partition vote, November 29, 1947

As we approach the seventieth anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 for the partition of Palestine, which was adopted on November 29th, 1947,1 it is appropriate to examine the impact and significance of that resolution, most particularly for the Palestinian leadership. Indeed, Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the PLO and head of the Palestinian Authority, when appealing to the Secretary-General as well as the Security Council of the United Nations (UN), constantly refers to that resolution as the source of authority for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and for the delineation of its boundaries.2

Based on international law as well as factual and historical evidence, this paper details the meaning and impact of Resolution 181, in addition to explaining why it cannot serve as an authoritative and legal reference for the establishment of a Palestinian state and the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people.

United Nations Partition Map, 1947

United Nations Partition Map, 1947 (United Nations)

UN Resolution 181: Its Historical Context

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly, in Resolution 181, approved what is known as the “partition plan.” This plan intended to split the geographical area of Palestine into two distinct states: one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem as an internationally-ministered separate entity (corpus separatum – see map).3 Thirty-three countries voted in favor, 13 against, ten abstained, and one was absent.”4

Initially, both Jews and Arabs were shocked by the idea of partition.5 “The Zionist movement viewed the whole of Eretz Yisrael as a Jewish patrimony,” according to Israeli scholar Prof. Shlomo Avineri, “and the effort to reach a Jewish majority was aimed at giving this claim international support and legitimacy. And the emerging Palestinian national movement … viewed Falastin as integral a part of the great Arab homeland as all other lands from Morocco to Iraq.”6

However, although the two sides shared the surprise, their reaction to the partition plan diverged significantly. The Jews accepted the plan with a mixture of joy and hesitation, while the other rejected it and launched a war to forcibly prevent its implementation.

Although both parties claimed a legitimate right to inhabit the area, the Arabs denied the Jews any right whatsoever in their ancestral homeland, and a large majority still maintains this view to this day. The adoption of UN Resolution 181 was seen as cataclysmic by the Arab side; not only did they not abide by it, but they went to war against the nascent Jewish State to express their discontentment and their refusal to allow a such a state to exist.

UN Resolution 181’s Content

The partition plan officially terminated the British Mandate for Palestine. British forces were to be evacuated from Palestine within a few months after the implementation of the resolution, more precisely by August 1, 1948.7 It further suggested that the area of Palestine be divided into eight parts: three cities were meant to be under Jewish rule, three cities under Arab rule, and the city of Jaffa was intended to an Arab district under Jewish rule.8 Jerusalem was intended to be administered by a UN Ad Hoc Committee and therefore have the status of an international city, meant to belong to neither of the parties.

Secondly, the resolution stated that no party should attempt to prevent the successful implementation of all its clauses, at it states:

The resolution requests that the Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution.9

However, the UN took no measures to follow through with its assessment when Arab aggression took place against Jews in 1947 and especially in 1948, following Israel’s declaration of independence.10 Therefore, although Resolution 181 was meant to create a modus operandi between the two parties, it utterly failed to do so, since the Arab party categorically rejected it. Its implementation could therefore not be accomplished.

The remains of a Hadassah hospital convoy to Mt. Scopus in Jerusalem, April 13, 1948. The Arab attack killed 78 people heading to the hospital.

The remains of
a Hadassah hospital convoy

The remains of a Hadassah hospital convoy to Mt. Scopus in Jerusalem, April 13, 1948. The Arab attack killed 78 people heading to the hospital.

The Resolution Cannot Be Utilized as a Basis for Palestinian Statehood

 Since the Arab states rejected the resolution upon its adoption and prevented its implementation, the Palestinian leadership can neither logically nor legally claim today that Resolution 181 can serve as a basis for the establishment of the Palestinian state. One cannot reject and undermine a formal resolution and change one’s mind 70 years later.

With incredible chutzpa (audacity) PLO observer Nasser al-Qidwa sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1999, demanding that “Israel must still explain to the international community the measures it took illegally to extend its laws and regulations to the territory it occupied in the war of 1948, beyond the territory allocated to the Jewish State in Resolution 181.”12  This territory included several modern-day Israeli cities, as well as Jerusalem.  

Dr. Dore Gold, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, was directly confronted with this issue. He responded by quoting Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s address to the Knesset in December 1949, in which he asserted that Israel could no longer accept the UN Resolution of 1947 as binding. Since the UN failed to implement its own resolution, Israel regarded the resolution as null and void.13

Concerning the city of Jerusalem, the rejected resolution itself formulated that the city was to be internationally ruled for ten years, after which a referendum would be held by its residents to decide on its sovereignty.

In addition to never being properly implemented and having been rejected by Arabs, the partition plan is semantically nebulous in that it refers to the creation of an Arab state, not a Palestinian state. Indeed, nowhere does it indicate the creation of a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, but it states the creation of two states within the area of Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab. There was never any such designation as “Palestinian” for the Arab population residing in the area, and the designation was only adopted in 1964 with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Therefore, when Mahmoud Abbas claims that Resolution 181 is a solid proof and basis that “Palestinians” have a right to their state of their own within the frontiers that it delineates, he is misleading the international community. 

Since Arab states not only rejected the plan but went to war against the new Jewish State, they are in no position whatsoever to use it a legal source for the establishment of a state of their own.

Lastly, according to the UN Charter, General Assembly resolutions are simply recommendations and are not legally binding. Only resolutions adopted by the Security Council under the Seventh Chapter of the Charter, to deal with threats to international peace and acts of aggression, may be obligatory. Therefore, the General Assembly through its 1947 Partition resolution, was not empowered to make any rules, and even less so to draw the borders of nations.14

Furthermore, Israel’s declaration of independence in May 1948 further reduced the importance of Resolution 181. It and its partition plan were rendered insignificant. According to Professor Eugene Kontorovich, who cites Israel’s reliance on the uti possidetis principle, a Latin term which means “as you possess,” the borders of the new state of Israel remained those of Mandatory Palestine.15 Indeed, since the Arab leadership rejected Resolution 181’s clauses, the delineation of borders is now defined by the aftermath of the 1948-1949 War of Independence. Therefore, Israel is lawfully entitled to the territories it acquired following its conflict with the Arabs in 1949.

In conclusion, based on solid factual and historical evidence as well as international law, Resolution 181 is not only non-binding, but it cannot in any manner be considered to be a basis for a Palestinian claim to statehood. The Arab leadership categorically rejected it in its entirety, in addition to waging war against the newborn Jewish State in order to render the resolution inoperable. The Palestinian leadership today cannot validly refer to that resolution as the basis for establishing a Palestinian state and by the same token, cannot accuse Israel of not abiding by it.  Moreover, since the UN did not even manage to implement its own resolution, what credibility and legitimacy does it have? It is time for the Arab leadership to stop manipulating the United Nations and historical facts. Sadly, based on their outward behavior in recent decades, it would be hard to expect a change from them anytime soon.

* * *

SOURCE: Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs

http://jcpa.org/article/70-years-un-resolution-181-assessment/

Liberator  posted on  2018-09-17   17:17:44 ET  (3 images) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Liberator (#23)

•Since the Arab states rejected the resolution upon its adoption and prevented its implementation, the Palestinian leadership can neither logically nor legally claim today that Resolution 181 can serve as a basis for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Why not? The Arab states rejected the deal, not the Palestinian Arabs. In fact, 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were driven from their lands and homes.

And if UN Resolution 181 can't serve as a basis, then certainly UN 242 and UN 338 can, both reaffirming the establishment of a Palestinian state.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-09-17   20:30:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 27.

        There are no replies to Comment # 27.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com